Will Ness <will_n48 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTW could there be a use for something like
>> infixl 1 #
>> x # f = f x -- (#) = flip ($)
>> to have the direct data flow reflected in our code, so that your code
> would become
>> test = [] # (3:) # (8:) # (7:)
>> maybe sometimes it's more natural to think of data being "piped
> through" the chain of functions, and to write them down in forward,
> not reverse order of application?
I think, it's more natural to think in terms of functions, and often the
argument to a function is not just something as simple as [] anyway. If
you want to think in chaining instead of composition, you can use arrow
sequencing (>>>) instead of function composition (.):
import Control.Arrow
test = (3:) >>> (8:) >>> (7:) $ []
Greets,
Ertugrul.
--
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
http://blog.ertes.de/